https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148307 A delegated rule prescribing a three-month period for refund claims under the section 4 refund proviso was invalid because the parent Act did not fix any limitation and did not authorise such a time bar. The article also states that refund under the unamended proviso did not depend on prior actual payment or collection of tax; that requirement was introduced only later by section 4-A. On that basis, refund applications filed before the amendment were entitled to be considered on merits, and rejection for limitation could not stand. en-us Fri, 10 Mar 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:00:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148307 A delegated rule prescribing a three-month period for refund claims under the section 4 refund proviso was invalid because the parent Act did not fix any limitation and did not authorise such a time bar. The article also states that refund under the unamended proviso did not depend on prior actual payment or collection of tax; that requirement was introduced only later by section 4-A. On that basis, refund applications filed before the amendment were entitled to be considered on merits, and rejection for limitation could not stand. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 10 Mar 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148307